Explanation
Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 26970. (Read 26686260 times)
June 28, 2014, 11:00:49 AM
June 28, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
I've been doing some analysis on the latest craze, Proof of Stake coins like NXT. On the surface they look like a good deal, with innovation and some great ideas. But they appear to suffer from one very fatal flaw. Proof of Work coins are backed by energy. Those providing the Proof (miners here) must choose one coin on which to spend their energy to provide it. Proof of Stake coins have no such protection.
You cannot double-spend your energy and use it to mine multiple Proof of Work coins (e.g. X Bitcoin and Y Litecoin mined with the same energy expenditure as mining just X Bitcoin or just Y Litecoin). New coins may pop up, but they must fight over the limited supply of miners/energy. This fight over a limited resource ensures you will not see an infinite number of Proof of Work coins pop up running in parallel. This backing by energy ensures we will not see inflation through endless chains of PoW coins.
Proof of Stake coins do not have this protection. Those providing the Proof of Stake, the holders of coins, can freely hold an unlimited number of different PoS currencies, rather than being forced to choose to mine only one with each unit of electricity. Each PoS coin causes no pressure on the others. Thus, an infinite number of PoS coins can flood the market. With no limited resource (miners/energy) being competed for by all the PoS coins, the value that investors look to store in such coins will be diluted more and more over time as new PoS coins are created. This makes PoS coins worthless as a store of value, regardless of the individual characteristics of any particular PoS coin.
In short, Satoshi was clearly thinking long-term with Bitcoin, or he got very, very lucky. Either way, we are all very much in his debt for getting it so right on the first go.
You cannot double-spend your energy and use it to mine multiple Proof of Work coins (e.g. X Bitcoin and Y Litecoin mined with the same energy expenditure as mining just X Bitcoin or just Y Litecoin). New coins may pop up, but they must fight over the limited supply of miners/energy. This fight over a limited resource ensures you will not see an infinite number of Proof of Work coins pop up running in parallel. This backing by energy ensures we will not see inflation through endless chains of PoW coins.
Proof of Stake coins do not have this protection. Those providing the Proof of Stake, the holders of coins, can freely hold an unlimited number of different PoS currencies, rather than being forced to choose to mine only one with each unit of electricity. Each PoS coin causes no pressure on the others. Thus, an infinite number of PoS coins can flood the market. With no limited resource (miners/energy) being competed for by all the PoS coins, the value that investors look to store in such coins will be diluted more and more over time as new PoS coins are created. This makes PoS coins worthless as a store of value, regardless of the individual characteristics of any particular PoS coin.
In short, Satoshi was clearly thinking long-term with Bitcoin, or he got very, very lucky. Either way, we are all very much in his debt for getting it so right on the first go.
June 28, 2014, 10:28:20 AM
they wish that the world would be as static as their own intellectual development.
Hey, you're the one that wants a mechanism to keep the price stable (an idea that attempts to buck the market and is used in the real world to transfer wealth to the wealthy and powerful no less)
Yeah his doublespeak is quite interesting. According to mervyn if you support Bitcoin you support a static world without progress and intellectual development. It's not like Bitcoin is disruptive or anything...
“There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
― George Orwell, 1984
June 28, 2014, 10:24:45 AM
they wish that the world would be as static as their own intellectual development.
Hey, you're the one that wants a mechanism to keep the price stable (an idea that attempts to buck the market and is used in the real world to transfer wealth to the wealthy and powerful no less)
Yeah his doublespeak is quite interesting. According to mervyn if you support Bitcoin you support a static world without progress and intellectual development. It's not like Bitcoin is disruptive or anything...
June 28, 2014, 10:24:23 AM
C'mon people. Quoting Mervyn_Pumpkinhead is really destroying this thread. Cut that out.
A much better quoting policy
Seen a few articles lately from localised news sources about relatively small businesses being held to ransom with bitcoin and my tinfoil hat tells me its the start of a smear campaign. Probably just perfectly normal paranoia but just in case...
This a real phenomenon that is going to need to be dealt with or addressed in some various ways... I certainly do NOT know the solution... except maybe there are some multi-sig solutions... but those seem to create problems as well...
people robbed banks in the wild wild west b/c that is where the money was....
greed can be very powerful... and taking from someone else (or attempts at such) can be somewhat direct with bitcoin...
I've not really spent a whole lot of time studying them but what make me suspicious is their timing wasn't far apart and they seemed fairly similar yet they where a long distance apart from each other. That suggests an organisation rather than individuals and they focus on the single aspect of bitcoin that puts it ahead of cash for criminals, no need for any physical exchange. I'd guess the best course of action for anyone receiving threats is to notify law enforcement (or load up on shells) and refuse to pay but if anything is paid then the transaction must be made public so it can be tracked. Things like this will likely only serve to promote coin tracking features which will in turn create black and white bitcoin economies (or increase the utility of more anonymous systems such as darkcoin).
Really though, if someone is holding you... and saying, "your bitcoins or your life", which one would you prefer to keep?
Solutions:
reversibility?
multisig?
tracking? (that's not gonna happen is it?)
Insurance.
June 28, 2014, 10:22:53 AM
You aren't going to improve chopsticks. You aren't going to improve the core function of liquidity - just make it efficiently usable. Any " innovation" that makes it less efficiently usable is a SCAM.
If you create a platform for a digital economy and cash transfer happens to be one of the features that is leveraged for that ends, why is that a Bad Thing?
It's not a bad thing. I agree. But its never going to be a threat to Bitcoin in competition for the natural monopoly of liquidity.
My expression was bad, because I inferred that every coin with features was a scam. It's not. My apologies for such an ill-considered utterance. But it's not a candidate in the race for liquidity leadership.
June 28, 2014, 10:21:11 AM
Just going to pop this here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-26/nirp-strikes-spain-create-tax-bank-deposits
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-26/nirp-strikes-spain-create-tax-bank-deposits
June 28, 2014, 10:16:16 AM
....
This makes sense but I'm not familiar enough with the protocol to know whether including certain features would make building particular applications easier or more effective. It seems inelegant, for example, to build an application to enable instant transactions and real-time trading on top of the bitcoin protocol, due to the 10-minute block time. I'm still on the fence on this one, though in practice I suspect people will use the option that works out-of-the-box. There's the friction that occurs within the protocol/system itself and the friction that occurs between user and protocol.
Your sig quote is one of my favourites, but sadly it's not one of mine. I've no idea where it comes from - couldn't find an original source.
This makes sense but I'm not familiar enough with the protocol to know whether including certain features would make building particular applications easier or more effective. It seems inelegant, for example, to build an application to enable instant transactions and real-time trading on top of the bitcoin protocol, due to the 10-minute block time. I'm still on the fence on this one, though in practice I suspect people will use the option that works out-of-the-box. There's the friction that occurs within the protocol/system itself and the friction that occurs between user and protocol.
Your sig quote is one of my favourites, but sadly it's not one of mine. I've no idea where it comes from - couldn't find an original source.
The sig was part of a discussion a you had with aminorex (iirc) a few weeks ago, I C&P'd it straight from the post but I'll change it shortly if its a problem. I quoted it as soon as I read it but there was some much better stuff in that post, very informative and much appreciated.
We're only scratching the surface of what can be achieved with the protocol so far and I wouldn't be surprised if the trustless verification leaves the use as a currency far behind sometime. The ten minute blocks seems like a problem but essentially it means you only have to trust any system that transfers ownership for ten minutes, be that stock exchanges, car dealerships, estate agents or anything else that requires a trusted third party to verify transfer.
EDIT: Got it:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7132970
EDIT2: Doh, I get it now. Thanks for quoting an excellent piece from an unfortunately unknown source
No worries on the sig. You know you've arrived on these boards when someone quotes you in their sig
Just didn't want to look like I was trying to take credit for someone else's words. When I do that I always make sure I won't get found out. 
June 28, 2014, 10:12:18 AM
C'mon people. Quoting Mervyn_Pumpkinhead is really destroying this thread. Cut that out.
A much better quoting policy
Seen a few articles lately from localised news sources about relatively small businesses being held to ransom with bitcoin and my tinfoil hat tells me its the start of a smear campaign. Probably just perfectly normal paranoia but just in case...
This a real phenomenon that is going to need to be dealt with or addressed in some various ways... I certainly do NOT know the solution... except maybe there are some multi-sig solutions... but those seem to create problems as well...
people robbed banks in the wild wild west b/c that is where the money was....
greed can be very powerful... and taking from someone else (or attempts at such) can be somewhat direct with bitcoin...
I've not really spent a whole lot of time studying them but what make me suspicious is their timing wasn't far apart and they seemed fairly similar yet they where a long distance apart from each other. That suggests an organisation rather than individuals and they focus on the single aspect of bitcoin that puts it ahead of cash for criminals, no need for any physical exchange. I'd guess the best course of action for anyone receiving threats is to notify law enforcement (or load up on shells) and refuse to pay but if anything is paid then the transaction must be made public so it can be tracked. Things like this will likely only serve to promote coin tracking features which will in turn create black and white bitcoin economies (or increase the utility of more anonymous systems such as darkcoin).
Really though, if someone is holding you... and saying, "your bitcoins or your life", which one would you prefer to keep?
Solutions:
reversibility?
multisig?
tracking? (that's not gonna happen is it?)
June 28, 2014, 10:07:36 AM
June 28, 2014, 10:00:42 AM
June 28, 2014, 09:51:22 AM
they wish that the world would be as static as their own intellectual development.
Hey, you're the one that wants a mechanism to keep the price stable (an idea that attempts to buck the market and is used in the real world to transfer wealth to the wealthy and powerful no less)
June 28, 2014, 09:49:15 AM
new bubble really comming
those graphs are very errective
June 28, 2014, 09:43:27 AM
Unlike bitcoin, gold has practical application besides storing and transferring wealth.
What do you think the value of gold would be right now based only on its industrial applications? Its value is speculative. As far as storage of wealth the US gvt sure can't keep track of gold, and as for transfer, its pretty cumbersome don't you think?
Gold has been double spent.
June 28, 2014, 09:42:08 AM
C'mon people. Quoting Mervyn_Pumpkinhead is really destroying this thread. Cut that out.
A much better quoting policy
Seen a few articles lately from localised news sources about relatively small businesses being held to ransom with bitcoin and my tinfoil hat tells me its the start of a smear campaign. Probably just perfectly normal paranoia but just in case...
This a real phenomenon that is going to need to be dealt with or addressed in some various ways... I certainly do NOT know the solution... except maybe there are some multi-sig solutions... but those seem to create problems as well...
people robbed banks in the wild wild west b/c that is where the money was....
greed can be very powerful... and taking from someone else (or attempts at such) can be somewhat direct with bitcoin...
June 28, 2014, 09:38:09 AM
The market is in full fear mode again. Over absolutely nothing.
Where do you see the fear? There's barely any volume so most people are doing nothing. I see a small rise to 604 a few hours ago, then a small drop to 592 and we're currently sitting at 595 on Stamp. This is just a regular boring market day.
June 28, 2014, 09:34:12 AM
C'mon people. Quoting Mervyn_Pumpkinhead is really destroying this thread. Cut that out.
He is going to single-handedly destroy bitcoin too.... OMG...
NOT
June 28, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
Moody weekend 
June 28, 2014, 09:31:26 AM
The market is in full fear mode again. Over absolutely nothing.
June 28, 2014, 09:30:31 AM
Unlike bitcoin, gold has practical application besides storing and transferring wealth.
So how do you call being able to formalise a contract without trust or third parties involved? A public ledger that anyone can use to vote where no one can lie or cheat the system?
Bitcoin can be the money of the internet and a store of wealth but it has a lots of practical applications too. If you are only seeing the currency side of Bitcoin you are missing a lot of potential.
He is only seeing the fabricated ponzi scheme side of bitcoin and the made up regligiosity of bitcoin... Pumpkinhead is NOT intending on engaging in a meaningful dialogue about various beneficial aspects of bitcoin, he just wants to attempt to simplify and then proclaim that he has all the answers and knowledge and that we are NOT listening to his brilliance... which his post history would show brilliance within Pumpkinhead (at least in regard to his bitcoin proclamations) is far from an actual tangible.. Though he may be brilliant at spreading FUD and/or derailing us from engaging in meaningful and productive discussions.
Jump to: